Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Texas petitions to be its own country (again)

So talk about Texas wanting to separate from the US and be its own country has been up lately. Cities like Dallas stated if this comes to pass it wants to become its own State. I really am looking to move out of here now more than ever. Anyone know more insight on this though?

This is a publicity stunt cobbled together by butt-hurt Republicans. Even the local AM ultra-conservative talk radio hosts regularly laugh at callers who pitch their "going Gault" fantasies of Texas leaving the Union.

It's all bluster, always has been. Alaska and Michigan's upper peninsula have higher percentages of their population in favor of secession, and you don't even hear about them that often because it's not going to happen.

The politicians who claim to support it are using it as a marketing tool. It impresses secessionists, but it also can solidify your connection with non-secessionists to show that you're willing to go that far for them, your loyalties are at home and not in Washington. "A Texan before an American" might sound a bit seditious, but it's not that different from what governors and even some legislators like to say in every state - that they're only there to represent THEIR state, other states have their own representatives and its a job for higher offices to oversee the country as a whole.

Those same politicians also know the country would collapse quickly. Just like now, every time they've blustered about it, there's been parts of the state that have said, "Fuck that, we'll make our own state and stay." Texas as a whole would have a hard time stabilizing itself separate from the federal government, but not impossible - there are smaller viable countries after all. But without the parts that have given their intent to remain in the Union, it doesn't even look theoretically viable unless subsistence farming becomes the primary economic activity.

Edit: And even that would probably leave them needing outside protection, at least initially, and that would probably come from the US. And getting that help would require leaving on good terms, and if this actually happened you know they'll be leaving with their pants down flipping both birds. Also, it would arguably leave them with even less autonomy than they have now, or at least an immensely more visible limit on their autonomy in the form of foreign military presence.

- The Population of Texas
- The number of people who signed this petition.

Also I am told that short of armed insurrection the legal path to independance is rough and possibly requires constitutional amendments.

There's about 100,000 signatures out of 25 million people. Still way too many dumbasses but not nearly enough for something like this to happen.

On the radio this morning I heard a clip of Rick Perry being like "it's important that people have the right to petition but I've got bigger things to worry about." So even he isnt taking it seriously. This is all just media hype around the petition fueling libertarians and racists to sign it.

26 million seems like it'd be more than enough to be a country, it's bigger than Australia - Texas is also fairly resource rich as well isn't it, in addition to the oil (it's GDP per capita puts it pretty high up alongside other similar states)?
If they wanted to, I'm fairly certain that California and Texas could make it on their own.

It'll be interesting though if this sort of thing gets picked up and turned into a 'more power to the states' narrative though.

26 million seems like it'd be more than enough to be a country, it's bigger than Australia - Texas is also fairly resource rich as well isn't it, in addition to the oil (it's GDP per capita puts it pretty high up alongside other similar states)?
If they wanted to, I'm fairly certain that California and Texas could make it on their own.

They would crumble almost immediately. Bereft of Federal food and gas subsidies, prices on both would immediately skyrocket (Gas especially). Also, a lot of the potential petrol Texas could exploit is off shore, which the US would absolutely tell them to fuck off and not cede the rights to. On top of that, having to fund border control across the entirety of the perimeter of the new nation would be an exhausting and expensive enterprise. A lot of interstate trade that Texas depends on would suddenly be international trade and be subject to tariffs and taxes. And to top it all off, Texas would lose all the static income from the various military bases that would pull out and relocate, not to mention all the companies that would pack up and flee.

So no, Texas probably wouldn't survive on it's own. Or at least not in any capacity of a functional first world nation. If by some chance they got by for 20 years without the Union coming and dragging them back kicking and screaming, things MAY stabilize enough to allow them to get a foothold, but not without some foreign aid (Wouldn't THAT be ironic). And really, who in the world is going to risk pissing off the USA by doing so?

26 million seems like it'd be more than enough to be a country, it's bigger than Australia - Texas is also fairly resource rich as well isn't it, in addition to the oil (it's GDP per capita puts it pretty high up alongside other similar states)?
If they wanted to, I'm fairly certain that California and Texas could make it on their own.

They would crumble almost immediately. Bereft of Federal food and gas subsidies, prices on both would immediately skyrocket (Gas especially). Also, a lot of the potential petrol Texas could exploit is off shore, which the US would absolutely tell them to fuck off and not cede the rights to. On top of that, having to fund border control across the entirety of the perimeter of the new nation would be an exhausting and expensive enterprise. A lot of interstate trade that Texas depends on would suddenly be international trade and be subject to tariffs and taxes. And to top it all off, Texas would lose all the static income from the various military bases that would pull out and relocate, not to mention all the companies that would pack up and flee.

So no, Texas probably wouldn't survive on it's own. Or at least not in any capacity of a functional first world nation. If by some chance they got by for 20 years without the Union coming and dragging them back kicking and screaming, things MAY stabilize enough to allow them to get a foothold, but not without some foreign aid (Wouldn't THAT be ironic). And really, who in the world is going to risk pissing off the USA by doing so?

Don't forget that a bunch of corporations would pack up and leave since they wouldn't be getting delicious protectionist policies anymore.

If secession ever seemed like something that might actually happen, would the US be remiss in offering asylum to citizens of Texas who didn't want to secede while at the same time telling everybody in the other 49 states who wanted out that they all had to move to Texas?

Also, anyone who thinks that Texas has the special right to secede because of how they were admitted to the United States...Texas v. White says 'nope'.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the ultimate law of the land, and the Supreme Court made the above ruling. That means that any language in a State Constitution that says otherwise is unconstitutional and meaningless. No state has the right to unilaterally secede from the United States.

If secession ever seemed like something that might actually happen, would the US be remiss in offering asylum to citizens of Texas who didn't want to secede while at the same time telling everybody in the other 49 states who wanted out that they all had to move to Texas?

I think that would pretty much clear out Idaho and half the south

Ah, a "We'll take your young educated liberal population and in return you can have all the unemployed/low-wage aging ignorant wingnuts you want" sort of deal?

I don't know what our population is, nor the percentage that's in favor, but Hawaii is trying to do this all the time. Well not "Hawaii", but a percentage of the native population. We were claimed (with the cunning use of a flag) more recently than the continental US and there's a degree of (delusional) belief that that can be reversed.

It's a fun hypothetical. The Texas Mexican Drug Cartel, or The Great Gas Station in the Middle of the Pacific but really.. then what?

We're the only state (as far as I know) that requires our educational institutions (even at the university level) to teach Texas History & Government. Within that phenomenon, we are repeatedly reminded that Texas is the only state to have entered the Union under treaty, and provisions exist within our state constitution that would facilitate the retraction of that treaty should we so desire.

In that, more so than any other state, Texas' actual succession from the Union would be far more painless, though that's not at all to say it wouldn't be a traumatic (and incredibly stupid) thing to do. Likewise, Texas' vast expanse of farmland, timber, coastline, and fuel resources would lend to a belief that if left to our own devices we could chug on by as well as any post-agrarian civilization at the turn of the century could expect.

If secession ever seemed like something that might actually happen, would the US be remiss in offering asylum to citizens of Texas who didn't want to secede while at the same time telling everybody in the other 49 states who wanted out that they all had to move to Texas?

I think that would pretty much clear out Idaho and half the south

Ah, a "We'll take your young educated liberal population and in return you can have all the unemployed/low-wage aging ignorant wingnuts you want" sort of deal?

Since Austin and Houston probably say 'fuck this noise, we're Americans', the new 'Republic of Texas' could potentially end up land-locked, and soon change its name to 'Cartel North'.

I know this is a minuscule, insignificant portion of Texans, but just generally I feel like Texans really need to get over their whole Texas first, America second state-pride mirror-induced boner. As if other states are so lacking in the ability or reason to be proud of their heritage, or that state-pride itself is worth anything more than meaningless granfallooning.

26 million seems like it'd be more than enough to be a country, it's bigger than Australia - Texas is also fairly resource rich as well isn't it, in addition to the oil (it's GDP per capita puts it pretty high up alongside other similar states)?
If they wanted to, I'm fairly certain that California and Texas could make it on their own.

They would crumble almost immediately. Bereft of Federal food and gas subsidies, prices on both would immediately skyrocket (Gas especially). Also, a lot of the potential petrol Texas could exploit is off shore, which the US would absolutely tell them to fuck off and not cede the rights to. On top of that, having to fund border control across the entirety of the perimeter of the new nation would be an exhausting and expensive enterprise. A lot of interstate trade that Texas depends on would suddenly be international trade and be subject to tariffs and taxes. And to top it all off, Texas would lose all the static income from the various military bases that would pull out and relocate, not to mention all the companies that would pack up and flee.

So no, Texas probably wouldn't survive on it's own. Or at least not in any capacity of a functional first world nation. If by some chance they got by for 20 years without the Union coming and dragging them back kicking and screaming, things MAY stabilize enough to allow them to get a foothold, but not without some foreign aid (Wouldn't THAT be ironic). And really, who in the world is going to risk pissing off the USA by doing so?

Not to mention all personal travel into and out of Texas would now be international travel (I wonder how much flight costs would increase?). Texas would need to set up it's own passport system and begin issuing those. Plus the new Texas government would need to pick up any federal aid+support programs they currently receive. Also, they would need to set up and fund their own military (good luck with getting that funded and to the point where it could actually defend Texas).

There would be so many new expenses that people who signed that petition certainly didn't think about.

We're the only state (as far as I know) that requires our educational institutions (even at the university level) to teach Texas History & Government. Within that phenomenon, we are repeatedly reminded that Texas is the only state to have entered the Union under treaty, and provisions exist within our state constitution that would facilitate the retraction of that treaty should we so desire.

In that, more so than any other state, Texas' actual succession from the Union would be far more painless, though that's not at all to say it wouldn't be a traumatic (and incredibly stupid) thing to do. Likewise, Texas' vast expanse of farmland, timber, coastline, and fuel resources would lend to a belief that if left to our own devices we could chug on by as well as any post-agrarian civilization at the turn of the century could expect.

Again, 'Texas v. White' says no.

That's a BS myth. The Constitution of the United States supersedes the (non-existent) portions of the Texas State Constitution that would allow that, and unless Texas v. White is overturned, Texas can't secede on its own.

In that, more so than any other state, Texas' actual succession from the Union would be far more painless, though that's not at all to say it wouldn't be a traumatic (and incredibly stupid) thing to do. Likewise, Texas' vast expanse of farmland, timber, coastline, and fuel resources would lend to a belief that if left to our own devices we could chug on by as well as any post-agrarian civilization at the turn of the century could expect.

Texas on its own would probably look a lot like Mexico. Not the poorest country in the world, but not the same living standards as the USA, few rights for the poor, and lots of corruption. I get the feeling that would not bother most Texans, at least outside the cities.

It would be very convenient for the rest of the USA to have a poor neighbour with cultural similarities and a common language. They'd probably repeal workers rights and the minimum wage, so they might get some factory jobs back from China. They'd be excellent as a base for call centers due to the shared language. They'd probably cut taxes to a bare minimum for the rich, so they'd probably get a lot of tax exiles.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

Texas would almost certainly get the offshore wells if they were in their territorial waters, that's an international law thing that would start the dicussion off in Texas' corner rather than the US's. Military would be complicated (these things always are) but I could certainly see a fair few of them remaining and being leased back to the US, especially as some of them are amongst the largest the US has aren't they? Additionally a lot of US defense spending could still be going to Texan companies/sites due the specialised nature of the industry.
The large border with Mexico is an issue though.

Far as companies go, there's also the potential for Texas to be a US-Ireland that might mitigate some of the disadvantages of being outside of the US (alongside the costs of relocation), plus it depends how sudden and sharp the split would be. Certainly don't see them leaving the dollar, and a NAFTA+ type deal would eliminate a lot of the additional tarrifs and taxes that would apply if we were talking about a country anywhere else in the world. It's got 8% of the US's population, but accounts for 15% of the US's exports with most of those being fairly high tech things rather than food and raw materials which are easier to find replacements for.

I don't think they'd be better off leaving at all, particularly since the politics that are making this a topic would be disasterous for an independant Texas, but I don't think that they'd instantly become Mexico 2 or worse.

In that, more so than any other state, Texas' actual succession from the Union would be far more painless, though that's not at all to say it wouldn't be a traumatic (and incredibly stupid) thing to do. Likewise, Texas' vast expanse of farmland, timber, coastline, and fuel resources would lend to a belief that if left to our own devices we could chug on by as well as any post-agrarian civilization at the turn of the century could expect.

Texas on its own would probably look a lot like Mexico. Not the poorest country in the world, but not the same living standards as the USA, few rights for the poor, and lots of corruption. I get the feeling that would not bother most Texans, at least outside the cities.

Pretty much this. The western half of the state would become a dangerous and lawless land where cartels were in constant battle against mercenary groups hired by oil companies and Hispanics could be shot on suspicion alone by native homesteaders.

The eastern half is still basically the Deep South, with the tooth-to-tattoo ratio that implies.

The Cities (Dallas/Ft.Worth, Houston, Austin/Waco, San Antonio) would largely be unaffected, except probably more hostile towards the poor. They're affluent enough to put on a nice facade over the whole mess.

Anyone want to take bets on how long the ruthless, well equipped, and Mexican Special Forces trained cartel would take to have their way with the new Texas Republic?

I mean, it's easy to point to the number of gun owners in Texas and say that they would be able to defend their state / country...but realistically, how many 'sheriffs' and 'militiamen' (and their families) would the cartel need to butcher? There are only so many people who are going to fight back, and the rest of those gun owners are going to start thinking that maybe it's not worth getting themselves and their families killed. Seeing as how that's what always happens, I think it's a pretty realistic outcome.

In that, more so than any other state, Texas' actual succession from the Union would be far more painless, though that's not at all to say it wouldn't be a traumatic (and incredibly stupid) thing to do. Likewise, Texas' vast expanse of farmland, timber, coastline, and fuel resources would lend to a belief that if left to our own devices we could chug on by as well as any post-agrarian civilization at the turn of the century could expect.

Texas on its own would probably look a lot like Mexico. Not the poorest country in the world, but not the same living standards as the USA, few rights for the poor, and lots of corruption. I get the feeling that would not bother most Texans, at least outside the cities.

Pretty much this. The western half of the state would become a dangerous and lawless land where cartels were in constant battle against mercenary groups hired by oil companies and Hispanics could be shot on suspicion alone by native homesteaders.

The eastern half is still basically the Deep South, with the tooth-to-tattoo ratio that implies.

The Cities (Dallas/Ft.Worth, Houston, Austin/Waco, San Antonio) would largely be unaffected, except probably more hostile towards the poor. They're affluent enough to put on a nice facade over the whole mess.

I pretty much agree, but that's a pretty hefty part of Texas isn't it? Texas is about 80~% urban compared to Mexico's 70~%, and those urban areas are a lot more affulent than the mexican ones with better infrastructure.

with the stipulation that this current talk is obviously dumb political reaction to the 2012 election and can be dismissed as such

I have never been entirely comfortable with Chase' reasoning in White. Who is it that declared the union "indissoluble" or "perpetual"? Certainly that isn't particularly stated in the organizational document. And that's leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the states ever "left" the union being decided at the business end of a rifle, rather than by any political means.

I mean, if we accept the fundamental premise that sovereignty rests with the people, it's difficult to escape the idea that some segment of the people of sufficient size ought to have the right to determine that they want to go their own way.

so next time you see recruiters in your school or your crib
tell'em thank you for the offer, but you'd rather you live